h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I thought it was a great article, as a layman on psychiatric subjects I found it surprisingly easy to read and I expect it would be a great help to readers, particularly those who have friends/relatives who are sufferers. The only thing I would say (probably covered above) is that I would reference parts, especially the quotes, so that anyone needing to read further on the subject would find it easier to look in the relevant texts. Maybe for the quotes you have from first hand experience you could put a footnote to that effect?

Good work!!

Hi Edward. I've finally got around to reading this entry. It is excellent. It explains the subject well and is very re-assuring. I wouldn't change it (except for the typos).

e.g., --> eg,
antidepressent --> antidepressant
vary severe --> very severe
(1g per day of EPA --> (1g per day of EPA)
found by behavious --> found my behaviour
what I learnt Cognitive --> what I learnt of Cognitive
If I don't realise it myself, know they know --> If I don't realise it myself, I know they know
may me under the misconception --> may be under the misconception

G

Typos done. Sources for quotes indicated.

I'm still willing to take suggestions for which (if any) quotes might be removed/ combined. On the other hand...I'm thinking of the reader who comes to the page with a problem. It could be useful to have a range of experience, little bits of which might ring a bell.

I don't think you should remove any quotes. Problems like this are not completely clear-cut; there are a range of different effects and symptoms, so it is useful to get lots of descriptions from different people.

I too think the quotes are the most vaulable part of the article. It's what makes it different from information given by doctors, which most people reading it will already have recieved.

It also gives hope.

Leave them in - please!

That's why peer review is good - you get lots of different opinions and points of view. Everyone thinks the number of quotes is ok, so ignore me

Mort (embarassed about the number of typo's picked up after I had looked )

Tell me about it! We've just had my wife's MSc thesis back. At least 3 people proofed it (including me!) - but the examimers still found stuff.

(Mostly pedantic stuff, to be honest).

Hi Ed B,

I think that your entry is superb. Quite superb. The quotations really add to it and it provides a very upbeat but practical assessment to a disorder that can be incredibly devastating to a family. Someone I know is in a situation where every single member of her family have the condition, apart from herself; and her life has been turned completely upside down. What you demonstrate in this piece is that there is light at the end of the tunnel, even though that tunnel may be long, deep and vastly complex.

Just a few quick questions - you say that UK psychiatric hospitals would be expected to spend a lot of time on intensive therapy, but that in reality it couldn't be further from the truth. This could mean a number of different things from neglect to abuse to things less malign. Could you elaborate?

Also, the names of some of the stars with BPD surprised me - I didn't know that at all. Are all these people fully signed up BPD sufferers, who have admitted their condition in public, or is there any hearsay involved?

Great job!

Woodpigeon

Good point. I'd better re-phrase the bit about psychiatric hospitals. What I mant was something like "Don't expect that you'll be spending a lot of time talking over your problems with trained personnel or sitting around in Group Therapy."

As to the personalities: I believe that the only dodgy one is Sting. Apparently he said something about conflicts within The Police along the lines of "...I was behaving manic-depressively at the time." It was possibly (probably) a throwaway remark and didn't refer to an actual medical diagnosis but to prima donna-ish behaviour. On the other hand...feck him. That'll teach him not to throw around medical terms so loosely.

Interestingly, I recently read of a US TV personality (Can't remember her name. A famous newsreader? Possibly married to David Letterman?) who was recently diagnosed. She said it was triggered by a bad reaction to prescription medication. Firstly - this is unlikely, and certainly can't have been proven. Secondly - it seemed rather sad that she was 'excusing' her medical problem - unlike, presumably, all the other sufferers for whome their illness was their own fault.

Entry now restored - having been taken down for 24 hours by an automated link checker. Apparently, in one of my links I had 'htp' instead of 'http'.

Perhaps she meant that a manic phase was precipitated by a SSRI?

I think she was talking about antibiotics (!!!) - but yes, SSRI's (and other types of antidepressant) can trigger manic episodes.

Aha!

It was Jane Pauley (an NBC News presenter) who is married to Gary Trudeau (I knew it was somebody famous). She attributed it to steroids and antidepressants (I stand corrected!) prescribed during a bout of hives. http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/books/9644500.htm?1c

I'm still not sure about her motivations for mentioning the medication so explicitly. She must still have had a genetic disposition. The article above implies that she should be sueing drug companies!

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Thanks again. Actually...I've had even better feedback. I showed it to a friend, who forwarded on to one of his friends whose husband has just been diagnosed. I hope they find it useful.

Well done! Excellent entry!

Congrats.